http://www.onphilanthropy.com/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7425&news_iv_ctrl=0
The most important is missed: the fact that the action of any company cannot save the planet, even if it is imitated, but that companies CAN save the planet IF they demand a better global system, meaning a more legitimate and efficient system of global governance. Civilisation will go under not because of bad faith or the lack of technologies, BUT because we simply don’t have an efficient global decision-making mechanism! We could die because even the smartest of the corporate and philanthropic world are not even aware it seems that the real solution is one of horrendous "management" of the world. And no matter WHAT companies do, as long as that remains, chances are that global catastrophe will occur. And that the most probable scenario for global governance in the future becomes one where it does happen, but under crisis situations, and then it will be autocratic rather than democratic. So the likeliest outcome is the emergence in the future of what could be called "global green fascism", a global authoritarian regime justified because of the survival of the species. Or possibly the return to wars, and descent into global "dark ages", metaphorically in addition to literally. So global corporate citizenship is a cop-out and wishful thinking if it does not include the simple yet powerful demand that the world needs to think how to design, create a global democracy type regime, because if it does not, the most likely regime to emerge in the 21st century will be a nightmare.
vendredi 14 mars 2008
Answer to Susan Raymond's Keynote speech "For what?"
http://www.onphilanthropy.com/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7429
This article, and the question "For what?", is crucial. But one thing amazes me, and another makes me angry, or sad or any number of other emotions because there are obvious points which Susan Raymond misses, and which unfortunately are SYSTEMIC failures of the philanthropic sector. The first thing is the incredibly tendencious argument about complexity. Ms Raymond sets a straw man and ridicules the position that basic needs should have priority, by stating "How can we as a society accept a paradigm that sets survival as a standard, that a full stomach is a benchmark which, when met, permits us to turn away? How can we possibly defend philanthropy that sees only bare minimums of human existence as its purpose, and yearns for nothing beyond that minimum? What a sad philanthropist that must be."
On the contrary, what a sad philanthropist it must be who does not see that there indeed is a hierarchy of needs (no need to read Maslow for that obvious fact). No one says to “turn away” once those needs are met, or to “yearn for nothing beyond that minimum”, but simply that some things must come first. It is mind-boggling to publicly ridicule the position that there might be a hierarchy of needs. Obviously, survival is the first step of the ladder, the one which allows all others. Indeed, how can society NOT set as a mininum standard a full stomach? (and various other matters such as primary education, or pre and neonatal care?) Yes, it IS immoral for the rich to give money to elite pastimes IF in parallel basic benchmarks are not met, or at least addressed seriously.
What justifies tax benefits? Obviously the assumption must be made that collectively private charities can do more good per unit money than government, otherwise why should they get a tax benefit? Secondly, there ought to be some sort of moral yardstick for philanthropy. What basic principle could set that yardstick? What basic principle provides a moral and philosophical justification for society to enter into a social contract with charities? For me it is obvious, it must be the principle that all human beings have equal dignity.
If we accept that, then it has revolutionary consequences, one being that we ought to find the most efficient ways to solve problems since the reality is that there is no level playing field for humans. Fate decides whether one is born rich or poor and that -still- decides most of the rest.
This is being done in many places with the concept of social entrepreneurship, strategic philanthropy, venture philanthropy etc. So the argument that some medical cure might be found unintentionally and therefore justifies giving unstrategically does not hold water. It is an argument opposite to the one which I believe Ms Raymond has made in other circumstances about the need to measure outcomes, to get results etc.
For instance, research proves that possibly the very best investment bar none to reduce the likelihood of illness, criminality as teenagers and adults is in appropriate and specific care for pregnant women and their unborn children, as well as during the first years of life. This has a biological reason: the brain is still developing and neuroplasticity is at its highest until 2 or 3.
That in itself would seem to represent a strategic focus for philanthropy, to help society operate a paradigm shift to guarantee "minimum standards" of neurological development for all children. If anything, ensuring that every child has its basic biological needs met probably counts as one of the few strategies which are so fundamental that it would rank very high in the list of "complexity-killers." And the moral imperative for helping children in our society which have the least support because of their background, socio-economic status etc. seems overwhelming.
Because unlike the unspoken assumption unfortunately implied by Ms Raymond, there is no level playing field in society, and once certain basic developmental milestones are missed, no amount of later charitable investment in education, art, culture etc. can ever correct the build-in injustice. The article self-servedly assumes an a-biological world, a "mechanical" world where timing has no import in terms of impact, which is absolutely untrue and only serves the interests of the dominant elite, and to perpetuate that elite.
So much for the phony complexity issue which is used as a figleaf to justify the idea that the world is a big bad place and that fundamentally we are unable to change things (a view dominant for thousands of years, and mostly associated with the era of absolute monarchies and powerful religious establishments and which I thought had died out with the Enlightenment), so we might as well not try to focus our intelligence on really solving things, and might as well take advantage of the nice little social compact we have going here and finance our pet luxury pursuits.
Of course my argument is also valid for the time argument too given by Ms Raymond, which again basically tells us "Well, things take time, we dont really know much, we are really not so smart and capable so please continue to allow us to pour billions into elitist projects because it takes so much time to solve the problems of the poor and the underclass". Another intellectual and moral copout. Another blind spot, since there are proven benefits that quickly accrue if basic infant needs are met.
But there is another even worse blind spot, an area where magical thinking really reigns supreme, the area of good political governance. Just to take one example, what specific decision or event has had a huge negative impact on the US and the world? the event which I shall euphemistically name the “Iraq democracy promotion campaign”, probably the most incredibly inefficient single event of recent time, an ongoing event which has cost trillions and which will still cost the US and the world more trillions.
Now we all agree that democracy is a good thing, but we also know it is a complicated system, not easy to design or create or even improve once it exists. Yet we also know that most problems of the world, most misery in the world, are due to bad and undemocratic governance. The latest case in point is the formerly stable Kenya, where a so-called “democratic” election degenerated into mass internal migrations and ethnic cleansing. Why? “Only for political reasons” answered the young Luo looking to kill his former Kikuyu neighbors who might otherwise be his friends.
Pakistan, Afghanistan, Zimbabwe, North Korea and inter or supranational issues like the European constitution, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, global governance just to mention a few. Here too magical thinking predominates, here too complexity and time are invoked like a mantra and an excuse not to even think about better ways to promote democratic governance (including ideas such as how can the world negotiate a global social contract to resolve common problems?). The end result is that the very concept of democracy becomes tainted because it has become associated with imposition and war.
With pre and neonatal care which is just a matter of implementation, the second high return focus for philanthropists should be fundamental and applied research in democracy and democracy engineering to find better ways HOW to promote basic human principles (which is the same as basic democratic principles) in idiosyncratic circumstances. This idea is as the other rooted in the arbitrary assumption that all humans possess equal dignity. If philanthropists dont take this assumption as their primary guide, and are unable to prove that they implement it better than governments, then the social compact that allows them to survive should be revoked on the basis of basic immorality.
This article, and the question "For what?", is crucial. But one thing amazes me, and another makes me angry, or sad or any number of other emotions because there are obvious points which Susan Raymond misses, and which unfortunately are SYSTEMIC failures of the philanthropic sector. The first thing is the incredibly tendencious argument about complexity. Ms Raymond sets a straw man and ridicules the position that basic needs should have priority, by stating "How can we as a society accept a paradigm that sets survival as a standard, that a full stomach is a benchmark which, when met, permits us to turn away? How can we possibly defend philanthropy that sees only bare minimums of human existence as its purpose, and yearns for nothing beyond that minimum? What a sad philanthropist that must be."
On the contrary, what a sad philanthropist it must be who does not see that there indeed is a hierarchy of needs (no need to read Maslow for that obvious fact). No one says to “turn away” once those needs are met, or to “yearn for nothing beyond that minimum”, but simply that some things must come first. It is mind-boggling to publicly ridicule the position that there might be a hierarchy of needs. Obviously, survival is the first step of the ladder, the one which allows all others. Indeed, how can society NOT set as a mininum standard a full stomach? (and various other matters such as primary education, or pre and neonatal care?) Yes, it IS immoral for the rich to give money to elite pastimes IF in parallel basic benchmarks are not met, or at least addressed seriously.
What justifies tax benefits? Obviously the assumption must be made that collectively private charities can do more good per unit money than government, otherwise why should they get a tax benefit? Secondly, there ought to be some sort of moral yardstick for philanthropy. What basic principle could set that yardstick? What basic principle provides a moral and philosophical justification for society to enter into a social contract with charities? For me it is obvious, it must be the principle that all human beings have equal dignity.
If we accept that, then it has revolutionary consequences, one being that we ought to find the most efficient ways to solve problems since the reality is that there is no level playing field for humans. Fate decides whether one is born rich or poor and that -still- decides most of the rest.
This is being done in many places with the concept of social entrepreneurship, strategic philanthropy, venture philanthropy etc. So the argument that some medical cure might be found unintentionally and therefore justifies giving unstrategically does not hold water. It is an argument opposite to the one which I believe Ms Raymond has made in other circumstances about the need to measure outcomes, to get results etc.
For instance, research proves that possibly the very best investment bar none to reduce the likelihood of illness, criminality as teenagers and adults is in appropriate and specific care for pregnant women and their unborn children, as well as during the first years of life. This has a biological reason: the brain is still developing and neuroplasticity is at its highest until 2 or 3.
That in itself would seem to represent a strategic focus for philanthropy, to help society operate a paradigm shift to guarantee "minimum standards" of neurological development for all children. If anything, ensuring that every child has its basic biological needs met probably counts as one of the few strategies which are so fundamental that it would rank very high in the list of "complexity-killers." And the moral imperative for helping children in our society which have the least support because of their background, socio-economic status etc. seems overwhelming.
Because unlike the unspoken assumption unfortunately implied by Ms Raymond, there is no level playing field in society, and once certain basic developmental milestones are missed, no amount of later charitable investment in education, art, culture etc. can ever correct the build-in injustice. The article self-servedly assumes an a-biological world, a "mechanical" world where timing has no import in terms of impact, which is absolutely untrue and only serves the interests of the dominant elite, and to perpetuate that elite.
So much for the phony complexity issue which is used as a figleaf to justify the idea that the world is a big bad place and that fundamentally we are unable to change things (a view dominant for thousands of years, and mostly associated with the era of absolute monarchies and powerful religious establishments and which I thought had died out with the Enlightenment), so we might as well not try to focus our intelligence on really solving things, and might as well take advantage of the nice little social compact we have going here and finance our pet luxury pursuits.
Of course my argument is also valid for the time argument too given by Ms Raymond, which again basically tells us "Well, things take time, we dont really know much, we are really not so smart and capable so please continue to allow us to pour billions into elitist projects because it takes so much time to solve the problems of the poor and the underclass". Another intellectual and moral copout. Another blind spot, since there are proven benefits that quickly accrue if basic infant needs are met.
But there is another even worse blind spot, an area where magical thinking really reigns supreme, the area of good political governance. Just to take one example, what specific decision or event has had a huge negative impact on the US and the world? the event which I shall euphemistically name the “Iraq democracy promotion campaign”, probably the most incredibly inefficient single event of recent time, an ongoing event which has cost trillions and which will still cost the US and the world more trillions.
Now we all agree that democracy is a good thing, but we also know it is a complicated system, not easy to design or create or even improve once it exists. Yet we also know that most problems of the world, most misery in the world, are due to bad and undemocratic governance. The latest case in point is the formerly stable Kenya, where a so-called “democratic” election degenerated into mass internal migrations and ethnic cleansing. Why? “Only for political reasons” answered the young Luo looking to kill his former Kikuyu neighbors who might otherwise be his friends.
Pakistan, Afghanistan, Zimbabwe, North Korea and inter or supranational issues like the European constitution, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, global governance just to mention a few. Here too magical thinking predominates, here too complexity and time are invoked like a mantra and an excuse not to even think about better ways to promote democratic governance (including ideas such as how can the world negotiate a global social contract to resolve common problems?). The end result is that the very concept of democracy becomes tainted because it has become associated with imposition and war.
With pre and neonatal care which is just a matter of implementation, the second high return focus for philanthropists should be fundamental and applied research in democracy and democracy engineering to find better ways HOW to promote basic human principles (which is the same as basic democratic principles) in idiosyncratic circumstances. This idea is as the other rooted in the arbitrary assumption that all humans possess equal dignity. If philanthropists dont take this assumption as their primary guide, and are unable to prove that they implement it better than governments, then the social compact that allows them to survive should be revoked on the basis of basic immorality.
Inscription à :
Articles (Atom)